So the Ender’s Game opening weekend came and went with little fanfare or trouble from the Orson Scott Card boycott. It also came and went with little money for the prospective franchise opener, bringing in less than $30m in North America.
The boycott had been proposed on social media earlier this summer as fans became aware of the Mormon author’s staunch and vocal opposition to gay marriage.
Boycotts never seem to work at anything but calling more attention to the thing you wish people would ignore. But with Ender’s Game, it was always going to be a hard sell even before Card’s words got them into trouble.
It’s a boycott I have plenty of sympathy for because Card’s anti-gay stance is repellent and harmful, but it’s not one I followed through on. I plunked my $14 down, but I did it for writer-director Gavin Hood and for Asa Butterfield and Harrison Ford and Hailee Steinfeld (and, by the way, for the bit-part actor who had the fortune to be named Han Soto in a Harrison Ford movie).
(After writing this post, I finally saw this piece on The Wrap that claims Card only earned the $1.5m option fee with no box office backend, meaning the boycott was pointless — but no one said anything until the day before it opened for some incredibly dumb reason.)
A while back in Vision Thing, Steve made this point:
…the commercial success or failure of Ender’s Game will still be a verdict on the viability of [Orson Scott Card’s] name as a brand. If the film tanks, Hollywood will learn the lesson that anti-gay rhetoric has passed into the realm of box-office poison. If the picture does OK-to-strong business, the moral will be that the general public really doesn’t mind a little beating up on the sissies – meaning that Card (and other content providers who share his noxious ideology) will continue to be considered for future paydays.
So now that we have part of the verdict — the film was not John Carter-level box-office poison but was not strong either — we may be even farther away from an answer than we were before we began. This is an unknowable middle: was this a repudiation of Orson Scott Card, or was it just lousy word of mouth for a big budget film with little-to-no direct action set pieces? How many casual movie goers even know Card’s name, let alone his stance? (And the more awful question: how many people still agree with him?) Continue reading…